[En-Nut-Discussion] Fwd: Nut/Net (was Re: branches\devnut_m3n and STM32F2 devices)

Tue Feb 14 04:15:11 CET 2012

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Guillaume Fortaine <guillaume.fortaine at devopspace.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 9:36 PM
Subject: Nut/Net (was Re: branches\devnut_m3n and STM32F2 devices)
To: Henrik Maier <hmnews at proconx.com>
Cc: Ulrich Prinz <ulrich.prinz at googlemail.com>,
bon at elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de, ole.reinhardt at embedded-it.de

Dear Mister Maier,

Thank you for your comprehensive reply.

> I would suggest to shift this discussion into the Nut/Os mailing list rather
> continuing it as private mail. The topic raised by Guillaume should be
> discussed more broadly in the Nut/Os community.

I am fine with this statement and I have just subscribed to the
"En-Nut-Discussion" mailing-list :

http://lists.egnite.de/mailman/listinfo/en-nut-discussion

> Guillaume, you also mention ChibiOS in your mail. But we are talking about
> Nut/OS here, a very different OS which for example does not require lwIP and
> offers a far superior TCP/IP stack than lwIP.

I would greatly appreciate that you develop your comment, if possible, please.

Especially, could you provide any benchmark ?

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lwip-users/2011-11/msg00071.html

"In fact, I have developed ftp server with lwIP, it works well enough ..and
support FlashFXP and FileZilla utility.
The download speed is 200KB/s and upload speed is 40KB/s in my Cortex M3 with
spi flash AT45DB321D."

By the way, from my point of view, Nut/Net has two main critical drawbacks :

-No IPv6 support :

http://www.ethernut.de/nutwiki/Nut/OS_Roadmap#IPv6

"I recently looked into Adam Dunkels' uIP again, which supports IPv6. To
me it doesn't look complicated. Quite the contrary, as it is limited to
single layer only and a few variables. As a first action, I'd suggest to
add it to the feature request list at SourceForge."

*lwIP supports IPv6 :

http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lwip.git/tree/CHANGELOG

"2011-05-17: Patch by Ivan Delamer (only checked in by Simon Goldschmidt)
 * nearly the whole stack: Finally, we got decent IPv6 support, big thanks to
  Ivan! (this is work in progress: we're just post release anyway :-)"

-Nut/Net is not easily portable :

http://embedded-source.blogspot.com/2010/01/nutos.html

"Nut/Net is designed for Nut/OS and not easy to port to other OS
because it uses many Nut/OS specific calls."

*lwIP has been ported to many RTOS :

http://lwip.wikia.com/wiki/Projects_that_use_lwIP

-FreeRTOS : http://www.freertos.org/portsam7xlwIP.html

"lwIP Embedded Web Server Demo"

-RT-Thread : http://code.google.com/p/rt-thread/wiki/Lwip_140_MigrationGuide

"lwip1.4 Migration Guide"

-ChibiOS/RT : http://www.chibios.org/dokuwiki/doku.php

"Support for external components uIP, lwIP, FatFs."

-tmos : http://code.google.com/p/tmos/source/browse/trunk/tmos/services/#services%2Flwip-1.4.0.rc1

"lwip-1.4.0.rc1"

I look forward to your answer,

Best Regards,

--
Guillaume FORTAINE
guillaume.fortaine at devopspace.com
DevOpSpace
http://www.devopspace.com
+33(0)631.092.519

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Henrik Maier <hmnews at proconx.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would suggest to shift this discussion into the Nut/Os mailing list rather
> continuing it as private mail. The topic raised by Guillaume should be
> discussed more broadly in the Nut/Os community.
>
> So please post questions and replies to the NutOS mailing list:
>
>        en-nut-discussion at egnite.de
>
> Guillaume, you also mention ChibiOS in your mail. But we are talking about
> Nut/OS here, a very different OS which for example does not require lwIP and
> offers a far superior TCP/IP stack than lwIP.
>
> Regards
>
> Henrik Maier
>
>
> On 11/02/2012 12:29 AM, Guillaume Fortaine wrote:
>>
>> Dear Mister Prinz,
>>
>> Thank you for your comprehensive reply.
>>
>>
>>> I hope you understand that this cannot be our intention.
>>
>>
>> I am fine with this statement. So do you plan to leverage the CMSIS
>> RTOS API instead ?
>>
>> http://forum.chibios.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=272
>>
>> "Starting from version 3.0, CMSIS will define a specific RTOS API, the
>> preview is already available here:
>>
>> http://www.onarm.com/cmsis/download/19/version-3-0-preview-of-the-cortex-microcontroller-software-interface-standard-cmsis/
>>
>> This API will allow to design RTOS-independent components. My idea is
>> to focus the kernel development after version 2.4.0 on providing a
>> compliant API, the new API would wrap/supplement the normal ChibiOS
>> API not replace it, I still think it is particularly efficient and
>> elegant.
>>
>> This development is interesting because it will possible to design
>> complex components (file systems, networking stacks) without have to
>> use a vendor specific interface. For example a stack like lwIP could
>> simply assume that API instead of defining its own RTOS wrapper."
>>
>>
>> I look forward to your answer,
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Guillaume FORTAINE
>> guillaume.fortaine at devopspace.com
>> DevOpSpace
>> http://www.devopspace.com
>> +33(0)631.092.519
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Ulrich Prinz
>> <ulrich.prinz at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Guillaume,
>>>
>>>
>>> I need to agree with Uwe Bonnes statement. The whole team put a lot of
>>> energy to get STM32 and later other CortexM based CPUs working in a
>>> system that can be used free for any hobby and commercial development.
>>> The work we did can only be done cause we can use the results
>>> commecially. Unfortunately GPL license is (as Texas Instrument calles
>>> it) a virulent license. That means that adding code that is GPL often
>>> requires additional code directly connected also has to be converted
>>> to GPL too. So GPL eats up part by part all code of the system and
>>> therefore makes it impossible to generate a commercial code.
>>>
>>> You might say that linux is used commercialy too and I agree as I do
>>> this myself too. But it generates a lot of development to keep your
>>> core knowledge and your own inventions apart from the GPL linux code.
>>> But it is possible to do it as Linux offers enough standarized
>>> connections for your software that you then keep secret.
>>>
>>> Nut/OS is a system optimized for extremely small controllers, hardly
>>> or impossible to run (uc-)linux. So your application software can and
>>> must connect more tight to the system to work fast and efficient. With
>>> GPL applied you will be forced to open lots of your application code
>>> to everyone.
>>>
>>> I hope you understand that this cannot be our intention.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Ulrich
>>>
>>> Am 10. Februar 2012 05:27 schrieb Henrik Maier<hmnews at proconx.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Guillaume Fortaine,
>>>>
>>>> The libopencm3 is GPL and because of this not license compatible with
>>>> Nut/OS
>>>> and therefore cannot be used. I remember seeing discussions to change
>>>> the
>>>> license of libopencm3 to LGPL but this was rejected.
>>>>
>>>> See
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hermann-uwe.de/blog/libopenstm32-a-free-software-firmware-library-for-stm32-arm-cortex-m3-microcontrollers
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>>
>>>> Henrik Maier
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/02/2012 12:58 PM, Guillaume Fortaine wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mister Bonnes, Mister Prinz, and Mister Maier
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, I would like to wish you and the people around you an
>>>>> happy new year.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me introduce myself : Guillaume FORTAINE, Cloudpreneur :
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/gfortaine
>>>>>
>>>>> I have read with interest the discussion entitled "branches\devnut_m3n
>>>>> and STM32F2 devices" [0]. Given that there is an Ethernet design
>>>>> available around the STM32 F-2,
>>>>> I would greatly appreciate to know if you plan to port the Ethernut
>>>>> project to it, if possible, please  :
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cgi.ebay.fr/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190638488534
>>>>>
>>>>> "ST Cortex M3 STM32F207 Development Board Ethernet USB Device/Host CAN"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, to quote [0] :
>>>>>
>>>>> "What I thought I do for now is to create an new subdir under
>>>>> branches\devnut_m3n\arch\cm3\dev called stm32f2 which temporarily
>>>>> holds the drivers I ported across from the stm directory. Once that
>>>>> becomes all stable and working I can work with the other STM32F1
>>>>> developers to maybe merge those files into one driver set suitable for
>>>>> F1, F2 and maybe even F4 devices. I like to avoid as much code
>>>>> duplication as possible."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't it be better to leverage the libopencm3 project ?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://libopencm3.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> "The libopencm3 project (previously known as libopenstm32) aims to
>>>>> create a free/libre/open-source (GPL v3, or later) firmware library
>>>>> for various ARM Cortex-M3 microcontrollers, including ST STM32,
>>>>> Toshiba TX03, Atmel SAM3U, NXP LPC1000 and others."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I look forward to your answer,
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> [0]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lists.egnite.de/pipermail/en-nut-discussion/2011-December/013183.html
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Guillaume FORTAINE
>>>>> guillaume.fortaine at devopspace.com
>>>>> DevOpSpace
>>>>> http://www.devopspace.com
>>>>> +33(0)631.092.519
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>